Log in

View Full Version : Sectarianism



redguard2009
17th November 2008, 02:38
Sectarianism has existed within Communism essentially since its conception, but today it has exploded into a deeply harmful tendency which plagues every aspect, every corner of revolutionary theory and practice.

During the latter half of the 19th century there existed quite a lot of strife between various sections of the working-class and revolutionary movement. Such is written about extensively by Marx throughout his texts in which criticisms are laid against other individuals and groups concerning their practice and/or theory.

But it was not until the mid 20th century that sectarianism as we know and love it today really took over. Though during the early 1900s, Lenin and the Russian and German communists, who at the time represented the largest mainstream communist movement in the world, embarked into "opposing camps", with social-democrats, utopian socialists, "Kautskyists" and various other gruops and individuals, it wasn't really until the onset of the Second World War that rifts between revolutionary movements and communist groups took a dangerous turn.

In Spain, the anti-fascist brigades made up of a wide array of ideologies successfully fought together against a common foe. However, in the tumultuous aftermath of their defeat, biting remarks and stinging criticisms were formed which in time shaped our world.

The political atmosphere surrounding the outbreak of the Second World War is also a cataclysmic point in history in which communists and other leftists began breaking apart from one another, as some pursued friendly relations with Stalin's USSR and others adopted critical positions on its relationship with Germany. And in the aftermath of that war, as Soviet influence grew in liberated countries, various factions, notably those adhering to Trotskyism, came to engender what they believed was a society of "communist victims of communism", seeing the apparent oppressive tendencies of the Soviet government as justification for breaking from any who supported the Soviet Union.

Further incidents ensued which chipped away and fragmented the socialist world. The Korean war, the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Soviet-Yugoslavian split, the Sino-Soviet split, the Cuban Missile Crisis, all developed from or developed into serious divisions.

All told, 30 years after the end of the Second World War, the communist world was fractured and split, with various camps forming and breaking alliances, conspiring against one another and unleashing a barrage of propaganda villifying their political opponents and angelicising themselves.

This tendency has seriously affected the communist movement. No longer are differences developed over debate and criticism -- the communist movement has split off into what I can only describe as gang culture, with self-imposing labels of affiliation serving as the main and often sole source of conflict between comrades, as each of us are more than willing not only to label others but also label ourselves. Eschewing mutual co-operation and even debate, criticism and discussion, our camps have become self-centered internal re-education camps; as we enter into the world of revolutionary politics were are individually pulled to one camp or another and once there we are taught to trust only in our gang and hate all others. Segregated, it becomes harder and harder for co-operation to exist. Further communication is dismissed as "Trotskyist lies" or "Stalinist totalitarianism" or "Anarchist mumbo-jumbo". Those who are new to the movement will often try to find ways to "mend broken ties", urge that we should all "get along" and that our "similarities vastly outweigh our differences". Those of us who have been embittered by years of rivalry shrug these "idealists" off, promising that they will soon learn the error of their utopian ways and eventually fall into one of our gangs and become yet another bitter rival.

RevLeft is a sort of microchosm of this effect. Nearly all of us have adopted and been adopted into affiliations with one ideological tendency or another and most of us stand ready to defend our "gang" and fight all others. Anyone seen as belonging to an opposing gang is dismissed out of hand without a thought. Though some communication takes place, very few threads exist where labels aren't thrown around as insults at opposing members.

For a long time I have adopted the idea that there is no way to reconcile our differences which have developed over decades of global politics; I have convinced myself that the best way to move forward is mercilessly, crushing or ignoring all opposition by virtue of my own self-described correctness. It quickly became clear, like it does to many, that there is no reconciliation possible; there are very few issues which more than a few people can agree on and there are literally hundreds of opposing groups, organizations, tendencies and parties with various affiliations towards one another but always a universal opposition towards most.

This is I believe one of the largest and most critical issues facing our movement, but I'm at a loss as to how to approach it. While it is true that our differences are nothing compared to our similarities, these differences have been so completely blown out of proportion and built up by decades of mistrust and open conflict that there seems very little hope for any sort of peace. To compound our natural differences, we also have to contend with counter-revolutionary forces doing their absolute best to divide and conquer us, overwhelming our minds with misinformation and mistrust towards one another.

Frankly, I'm quite tired of it. It's too hard. There is so much internal conflict that external progress seems an impossibility. Every revolutionary success which has manifested itself in the world over the past 50 years has been constantly harassed and condemned by most of us, and those in development meet with only a fraction of the support they deserve and, more importantly, need. Those of us who view these movements as "non-compliant" with our stringent beliefs are condemned and left to linger in obscurity; movements in Asia, Africa and South America which deserve our strongest possible support are villified and ignored as we sit around twiddling our thumbs and waiting for a more "amicable" movement to come along that fits with our criteria of what a movement has to be in order to earn our support.

That said, what the fuck are we going to do? If this division continues, there is absolutely no hope for any sort of global revolutionary movement -- indeed, there exists revolutionary movements across every continent and in almost every nation on earth and yet most of us seem not to notice this fact and still pledge our complete submission to a very small portion of it. Our "long-awaited global revolution" started years ago; most of us are simply too ignorant to recognize the legitimacy of the majority of this revolution.

chegitz guevara
17th November 2008, 03:07
Here is the way I have decided to combat sectarianism. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

I'm not going to attack different groups. When comrades of another group ask for my help, if I am able, I will give it. I will make my events open to all members of the socialist left (except if they are being deliberately disruptive). I will not try and force my politics down other comrades throats. If I get used, so be it. At a certain point, I think other comrades will learn I can be trusted, will realize I'm not out to get one over on them. This does not mean I won't disagree with or critique the politics of other groups or comrades, but I will do so from a position of trying to learn or teach (or both), not trying to "win" an argument. When my group screws up, I won't deflect criticism by attacking my critics. I accept that not only do I not know everything, but I probably have no clue; those with whom I debate may be right. I will not engage in ad hominems.

I'm not perfect. I'm gonna screw this up from time to time. I hope to convince others of the value of this method of acting towards one another.

RedScare
17th November 2008, 03:42
Excellent point OP. As a new comer, it's been tempting to let myself get dragged in to the Trotskyist camp, but I feel more like we need to act together. Not that this message will get through to enough people, but hey, I feel like we need to try.

Q
17th November 2008, 07:37
We're not weak because we're divided, but divided because we're weak.
For decades we're fought uphill battles to spread the ideas of Marxism. Splits were inevitable. This may now actually change as capitalism has not only entered a big economic crisis, but also a serious ideological blow: neoliberalism is bankrupt in every conceivable way.

As the working class will rebuild itself, so to will the forces of Marxism expand. This is of course a dialectical process. Point is, I think the long era of splintering is over now and the ideas of all currents will be tested in practice before the audience of the workers movement. The ideas that work will become dominant. Other currents will either fuse or wither away.

chegitz guevara
17th November 2008, 07:40
We're not weak because we're divided, but divided because we're weak.

This is only partly true. We are also weak because we are divided. A given number of comrades will generally be stronger when united than divided. We can't chose the environment, but we can chose how we respond to the environment.

Q
17th November 2008, 07:49
This is only partly true. We are also weak because we are divided. A given number of comrades will generally be stronger when united than divided. We can't chose the environment, but we can chose how we respond to the environment.

Agreed. But fusions between Marxist currents on an unprincipled basis will only lay the basis for new splits in the future. The process of fusion starts with testing out each others methods (which are only an extension of political stances) in a united front fashion.

This also goes for broader formations. The CWI for example raises the slogan for a (new) mass workers party in many countries. We propose this to be done on a federative basis, where each current has the freedom to spread its ideas for internal debate. This lays the foundation for a real workers party which unites all visions of the working class into one organisation.

Incendiarism
17th November 2008, 07:49
I suppose I used to be somewhat sectarian, but now I most certainly am not.

I believe the problem lies in the fact that we judge other tendencies according to what their representatives(for lack of a better word) did. It's quite easy to lambaste another as a Stalinist, but it seems quite funny when Stalin would have most likely been more or less opposed to them.

I understand that history has been a trying experience for those of every current, but it's about time we analyze things together and figure out ways to overcome them.

RedSabine
17th November 2008, 08:16
Let me tell you a story:

I've been a Socialist of one or another sort since I was 13. Well, long before that, but it wasn't anything official until then. Well, I subscribed/formulated a theory based on violent class war in which the workers would absolutely destroy all vestiges of the ruling class. Now, this is very immature theory, I know, but it was a revolutionary as you could get. I was ignorant as can be. Anyway, as I grew up a little, I read more about various things, and became sorta a anarcho-communist, or at least thought I was. Okay, so here the story really begines. At one point or another I read about crimethinc. and I immediatly despised it. It spat in the face of everything that I was, it said that it was my own families fault that we are poor, and that if we just lived outside of capitalism we could be free. It was disgusting. Anyway, by this point my drug addiction had gotten severe, and politics took a backseat. Now, more background. My Family is poor, but my grandmother is upper-middle class. She's 80 and decided that with her money she would send her grandson to a nice Rehab. So I went to Utah. All the other kids there were rich, and this led to quite a bit of resentment towards them. After me being there for a month, this guy named Syd came in. He had a big beard and was wearing some punk band t-shirt. He was an Anarchist. But what was worse, he was a Crimethincer! I was immediately opposed to him. I disliked him more than anyone else. anyway, overtime, I began to get closer to him, because at least we could agree that capitalism was evil. Overtime, my ideological rigidity was shaken, and I found respect for all forms of socialism. Even Crimethinc.

Anyway, this story may be not such a good way to get my message across, so I'll just say it. All leftist theories should be respected, and we should unite on our common anticapitalism, and then work together to create a more just world. It's hard for me sometimes, especially with Leninism, but even that has somethings that can be useful.

Solidarity first, comrades.
Salaam alaykum.

apathy maybe
17th November 2008, 09:45
Excellent point OP. As a new comer, it's been tempting to let myself get dragged in to the Trotskyist camp, but I feel more like we need to act together. Not that this message will get through to enough people, but hey, I feel like we need to try.

Don't do it! The Trots are baby killing scum! The only true path is the glorious anti-revisionist path! We don't kill babies, we save them. (We wait until they grow up, and then kill them.)

----

Seriously? I think that fighting against people who are similar to you is just stupid. I think that most Trot groups are moronic for putting out tracts against other sects. Why? Because they are so fundamentally the same.

But, when it comes down to it, anarchism and authoritarian "socialism" are opposed. Therefore, for me, an anarchist, to attack someone who claims to be a socialist, but calls for a strong centralised state, that is not sectarianism. Why? Because we want something completely different, and go about differently.

Sasha
17th November 2008, 10:27
^what he said, nothing to ad :thumbup1:

Charles Xavier
17th November 2008, 14:57
Fighting against other groups is wrong, heavy criticism and self-criticism is not only right but necessary. Victory against the class enemy will not be made with half-baked ideas or repeated mistakes which history has given many lessons from. The main interests of any ideology should focus on the working class movement, building it and making it succeed, rather than shameless party building at the expense of working people.

chegitz guevara
17th November 2008, 17:55
The problem about ideas is, unless there is some what to test them, they are nothing more than metaphysics. Every idea is a good idea and completely rational within its own world view. I have no proof, one way or another, that my ideas are superior or inferior to anyone else's, so how can we decide who is right? As we lack the mass movement in which to test which ideas are better, we may as well stop bickering about them. Our heroes didn't argue in the abstract, but in the concrete. Lenin did say, "Someday, this will be a great idea," but always from the stand point of, this is what we ought to do here, now, and he had the movement that could actually put those ideas into practice.

chegitz guevara
17th November 2008, 17:57
Agreed. But fusions between Marxist currents on an unprincipled basis will only lay the basis for new splits in the future. The process of fusion starts with testing out each others methods (which are only an extension of political stances) in a united front fashion.

This also goes for broader formations. The CWI for example raises the slogan for a (new) mass workers party in many countries. We propose this to be done on a federative basis, where each current has the freedom to spread its ideas for internal debate. This lays the foundation for a real workers party which unites all visions of the working class into one organisation.

I agree with everything you have said here. Although there is a question as to what constitutes an unprincipled fusion. For some, even the slightest iota of deviation is unprincipled.

Q
17th November 2008, 21:39
I agree with everything you have said here. Although there is a question as to what constitutes an unprincipled fusion. For some, even the slightest iota of deviation is unprincipled.

If one of the parties involved think that way either more discussion needs to happen first or, if all else fails, there won't be a fusion. That being said, I think it is inherent to democratic centralism to let different ideas thrive. For example within the CWI we have different ideas on the China question whereas our Swedish comrades are of the opinion that it is fully capitalist but the international line is more pragmatic and dialectic. I think both sides have their arguments and haven't fully made my mind on it yet.

RedScare
17th November 2008, 22:24
If one of the parties involved think that way either more discussion needs to happen first or, if all else fails, there won't be a fusion. That being said, I think it is inherent to democratic centralism to let different ideas thrive. For example within the CWI we have different ideas on the China question whereas our Swedish comrades are of the opinion that it is fully capitalist but the international line is more pragmatic and dialectic. I think both sides have their arguments and haven't fully made my mind on it yet.See, why can't there be more of this? Internal disagreement, but a united front on the outside.

Tower of Bebel
17th November 2008, 23:05
Sectarianism is part of the organizational question. Centralism, democracy and program are a unity. Only open criticism (democracy) and struggle for clarification (which results in a program) form the preconditions for discipline (centralism). Otherwise opinions will split.

chegitz guevara
17th November 2008, 23:47
See, why can't there be more of this? Internal disagreement, but a united front on the outside.

Did Lenin confine his disagreements to the inside?

Reclaimed Dasein
18th November 2008, 08:15
I think that the Bible gives us a useful conception.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

No obviously this isn't helpful if we imagine Christ as an invisible sky man, but the point is that the contradictions are sublated into a single unity. A Jew remains a Jew. A Greek remains a Greek, etc. Yet, they obtain an inherent unity so that one factor, in this case Christ, becomes the over determining factor. Let's put it a different way.

There is neither Communist nor Anarchist, Leninist nor Maoist, Stalinist nor Trostkyist, for you are all one in Class War.

The point of our unity should not be the bland assurance that we're all the same. Quite the opposite, we should recognize our inherent and irreconcilable differences. Yet, even so, we should make Class War and global human liberation the over determining factor. In that case, all who struggle for liberation (of any type) are my brothers and sisters. All who struggle against liberation (of any type) are my enemies.

ZeroNowhere
18th November 2008, 08:43
But, when it comes down to it, anarchism and authoritarian "socialism" are opposed. Therefore, for me, an anarchist, to attack someone who claims to be a socialist, but calls for a strong centralised state, that is not sectarianism. Why? Because we want something completely different, and go about differently.
Correct.
Wait, I mean, get away from me, you bloody sectarian. ;)

redguard2009
18th November 2008, 20:55
We're not weak because we're divided, but divided because we're weak.

I disagree with this strongly, more on an abstract basis than a material basis. I disagree with this sentiment, more accurately, because I believe this is an aspect of sectarianism in and of itself -- the belief that there is "one answer" and that our revolutionary division is because a number of us do not "see" this "answer" and that invariably claims will be made by some (or all) that only they have the answer.


All who struggle against liberation (of any type) are my enemies.

But what if your belief leads you to believe that the actions of another "class warrior" is more detrimental to liberation than supportive?

Revy
18th November 2008, 21:00
Here is the way I have decided to combat sectarianism. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

I'm not going to attack different groups. When comrades of another group ask for my help, if I am able, I will give it. I will make my events open to all members of the socialist left (except if they are being deliberately disruptive). I will not try and force my politics down other comrades throats. If I get used, so be it. At a certain point, I think other comrades will learn I can be trusted, will realize I'm not out to get one over on them. This does not mean I won't disagree with or critique the politics of other groups or comrades, but I will do so from a position of trying to learn or teach (or both), not trying to "win" an argument. When my group screws up, I won't deflect criticism by attacking my critics. I accept that not only do I not know everything, but I probably have no clue; those with whom I debate may be right. I will not engage in ad hominems.

I'm not perfect. I'm gonna screw this up from time to time. I hope to convince others of the value of this method of acting towards one another.

I agree :) I've not acted in this manner so I'll change the way I go about things.

chegitz guevara
18th November 2008, 21:06
But what if your belief leads you to believe that the actions of another "class warrior" is more detrimental to liberation than supportive?

That is much less often the case than many comrades seem to believe. In any event, it may be true, however, attacking such comrades over and above capitalism tends to alienate more workers and sympathizers than it draws in. Consider the Internationalist Group's attacks on Brian Moore. Is anyone seriously going to join the IG because of it? Is anyone even attracted to them because of it? All it did was make them look petty while giving us (admittedly a deserved one in one case) a black eye.

redguard2009
18th November 2008, 21:10
I know it is not all that often, but it does occur. For instance, differences in the questions of the "end result" of a specific tactic or the rammifications of certain actions has led Communists in India to attack one another, with the Naxalites targetting local provincial Communist governments and the Communist governments in turn oppressing the Naxals (and their supporters or alleged supporters).

Tower of Bebel
18th November 2008, 21:22
But, when it comes down to it, anarchism and authoritarian "socialism" are opposed. Therefore, for me, an anarchist, to attack someone who claims to be a socialist, but calls for a strong centralised state, that is not sectarianism. Why? Because we want something completely different, and go about differently.
Because there is only one road to power many groups think the same way as you do. They call each other reformist, authoritarian, sectarian or opportunist; and all claim to be genuine socialist or communist. Does this mean that eventually everyone who's sectarian is right to be sectarian? I don't think so. Sectarianism is not a farce, it is a tragedy!

Rascolnikova
19th November 2008, 16:49
There are many who would disagree with me, but I like to say that practices which don't "use observable facts to form theories which predict observable novel phenomenon" aren't science.

I don't know enough about the various branches of leftist thought to be sure, but I suspect the day will soon come when I start to say practices (and theories) which do not reflect the interests of the proletariat are not communism. The interests of the proletariat seems like a good litmus test for all sorts of reasons, practical, ethical, and theoretical. I would suggest that this be our defining standard. I suggest also that ability to articulate a given theory in terms of the direct, immediate interests of the proletariat as they perceive them be something we give substantial weight to in evaluating it.